Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Gormley85

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Ok from what I am being told it means that using the excuse of the high mag capacity,or potential high mag capacity in an unrestricted pistol is a null and void reason to say it is a restricted firearm.As it doesnt give you the opportunity to appeal this decision to the DC.As is the" looks like" a military/police /" non Olympic style" pistol concept.As there is nothing to say contry wise in the ISSF rule book as to what a pistol MUST look like.Am getting this 2nd hand and that seems to be the gist of it.

It is a "refer to Super for re consideration" again ruling AFAICMO.So you could end up doing the "DC shuffle" again.But there is the double jepodary now for the Super in the fact costs and decision could go against him too. So it has been equalised now in law.We can loose liscense and solrs fees,the AGS can lose decision and have costs awarded against them.
Probly take awhile for this to be published in law or via a court guy[cant think of the title who publishes these decisions in a more tidy fashion]
So the best thing is say to your cheif that he should be aware of this HC edict in his considerations.

Ok thats great. I dont suppose you have a name for this court case so I can refer him to it. Fingers crossed now one of the papers will publish an article on it between now and monday so I can bring it into him.

turismo2142

Without knowing anything whatsoever about the specific case to which grizz refers, if it is a high court case involving firearms issues then it must be a judicial review. If the state caved after the leave stage (which I'm guessing is what happened) then all that's happened is that there is a consent order entered into implementing some version of the reliefs sought in the original notice of motion quashing (certiorari) the original impugned decision and remitting it back to the decision maker...plus an order for costs (no doubt).

There will be no judgement and no precedent.

No new law has been made.

But I know nothing about the case itself...just to be very clear!

As for the point earlier re Courts of record.

Both district and circuit are both courts of limited jurisdiction and do not make any binding precedent as such. The High Court is a court of unlimited originating jurisdiction and it does act as a precedent.

Cass

Lost my internet for the last few hours so only getting to reply now.

Deaf git wrote: »

Was it not High Court? Grizzly did say 'HC'?

Just seeing that now.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Sorry I'll spell it out. HIGH COURT!!!!! you do then realise that it has shot down the 10 shot mag "could be " used in a 5 shot pistol and the whole "olympic style" pistols nonsense has been found out for what it is ,a fraud! This has some very far reaching consequences for AGS arguements on the shotgun mag capacity too.

Well done, perhapos now you can elaborate. Did the case go ahead? From what you've said it seems like "they folded before it began" means the case was not heard in which case turismo would be correct in that no precedent is set, and nothing was "won".

If you mean the case went ahead, they folded under the pressure, and the cases were ACTUALLY won then that is great.

turismo2142

it could of course have been part heard and settled midway when it became clear that the writing was on the wall for the state although it's far more likely that it didn't get that far.

Cass

This is all i'm trying to establish.

If its a win, i mean a proper win, in that the case was heard and a decision made by the Justice then it's a win. If not and it was settled "on the steps" then it's a personal win for the lads, but for the larger picture, not so much.

turismo2142

A win for the lawyers then perhaps...

Cass

Yup.

Grizzly 45

turismo2142 wrote: »

it could of course have been part heard and settled midway when it became clear that the writing was on the wall for the state although it's far more likely that it didn't get that far.

If you mean the case went ahead, they folded under the pressure, and the cases were ACTUALLY won then that is great.

From what I gather you are both correct in those two statements. PM's sent;)

bpb101

i think the garda are really worried about the precedence. Without a new law coming in they know it will only get easier and easier to appeal licenses.
Thats my 2 cents on this anyways

what did the lads want anyways 10 round .22 mags for pistols

i easily see why the lad would take such a deal , they would be fools to try and risk it (from a personal point of view) for precedences

Witcher

bpb101 wrote: »

what did the lads want anyways 10 round .22 mags for pistols

5 round mags, I presume they were being refused on the grounds that the gun could still technically take a 10 round mag, some supers are refusing on that basis.

Grizzly 45

Nothing to do with ten rounds.Most if not all .22 pistols come and have come with a defacto 10 round mag.Here the comps if not all of them are shot with 5or6 rounds[5 rimfire 6 CF].What the problem was that AGS decided that any pistol not coming from the factory with a five round mag."Could use" a ten round restricted mag to go and comit mayhem.
[Failing to explain how they would prevent anyone buying a bunch of five round mags and doing a so called "New York reload" with a 3 grand "Olympic styl"e target pistol.Or simply taping two five round mags end to end for the same effect of one single ten round.... ]So they automatically declared all bar a few competition pistols as restricted,and seeing that they were restricted ,no new liscenses could be issued for restricted pistols.
This seems to have been very naughty on their part,and this is what the cases were all about,amongst other points of law.

bpb101

Strider wrote: »

5 round mags, I presume they were being refused on the grounds that the gun could still technically take a 10 round mag, some supers are refusing on that basis.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Nothing to do with ten rounds.Most if not all .22 pistols come and have come with a defacto 10 round mag.Here the comps if not all of them are shot with 5or6 rounds[5 rimfire 6 CF].What the problem was that AGS decided that any pistol not coming from the factory with a five round mag."Could use" a ten round restricted mag to go and comit mayhem.
[Failing to explain how they would prevent anyone buying a bunch of five round mags and doing a so called "New York reload" with a 3 grand "Olympic styl"e target pistol.Or simply taping two five round mags end to end for the same effect of one single ten round.... ]So they automatically declared all bar a few competition pistols as restricted,and seeing that they were restricted ,no new liscenses could be issued for restricted pistols.
This seems to have been very naughty on their part,and this is what the cases were all about,amongst other points of law.

oh okay , sorry , i thought they wanted 10 round mags

oh okay so its another one of these " Well he could get 10 round magazine in american with this gun"

surprised he had to go to the high court. I would have thought the district would have dealt with it

Cass

I know of three lads in the last few months that have had their licenses revoked because of this. I assume they can appeal or re-apply now?

turismo2142

My recommendation to those whom did not contest the revocation is thus;

They are most likely out of time to review the original revocation as a JR. Certiorari has a three month time limit.

They should re engage with the original refusing super and formally ask them to reconsider the matter in circumstances where the minister for justice, commissioner of ags have determined that such revocations are indefensible (as per Grizz's post yesterday). When the Ags refuse to do this (which they certainly will), threaten mandamus (a judicial review injunction which effectively compels a decision maker to make a decision) and compel them to make such a decision. This will effectively reset the clock and (hopefully) get around the three month time frame limit. This needs to be skilfully set up by their solicitor in correspondence in advance.

knockon

Cass wrote: »

I know of three lads in the last few months that have had their licenses revoked because of this. I assume they can appeal or re-apply now?

Do you mean licenses "renewed" Cass as in they reapplied or were they taken from them as in you have a license but I am revoking it? Like a lot of us I ma unsure of the implications of the JR's and the success in the HC but it does sound like good news. I am sure a Solicitor will be all over this.

Cass

Sorry i should have been clearer.

I mean lads that because their pistols (unrestricted, 5 shot) "could" take more than 5 (originally 10 shots mags) were revoked. So with the above in mind it would seem they now have precedent and a reason to fight the revocation. It also really helps out lads that have 5 shot unrestricted pistols and would have faced this nonsense come renewal time.

meathstevie

The pistol being theoretically able to take a larger capacity magazine is a bit of a spurious argument.

The only way to prevent a pistol from accepting a magazine of any size as far as I know is to disable the magazine retention system because some sort of a larger capacity after market mag can just about always be made or procured.

If not some mechanism impeding the trigger mechanism will have to be added if the magazine isn't sitting flush in the bottom of the handgrip but that would straightaway be an after market modification which throws up it's own can of worms.

Cass

It's utter bullsh*t, to put it bluntly.

It insinuates that the person licensed will intentionally break the conditions of their license (hence the law) by loading more than they are allowed to. It's (however vaguely) akin to saying you cannot have a driving license because you may at some point break the speed limit, have a crash, not wear your seatbelt, etc. It's anticipatory measures to deal with something that may happen.

What makes it all the more insulting is the lads going for their licenses are, for the majority, renewing and hence were deemed suitable to have the gun as it was/is previously. So if they are unsuitable then the Super should never have granted licenses in the first as it's a breach of the firearms act to grant a letter to an unsuitable person.

bpb101

Cass wrote: »

It's utter bullsh*t, to put it bluntly.

It insinuates that the person licensed will intentionally break the conditions of their license (hence the law) by loading more than they are allowed to. It's (however vaguely) akin to saying you cannot have a driving license because you may at some point break the speed limit, have a crash, not wear your seatbelt, etc. It's anticipatory measures to deal with something that may happen.

What makes it all the more insulting is the lads going for their licenses are, for the majority, renewing and hence were deemed suitable to have the gun as it was/is previously. So if they are unsuitable then the Super should never have granted licenses in the first as it's a breach of the firearms act to grant a letter to an unsuitable person.

it really is bull. They are really making it as difficult as possible to get pistols.

But a Big question is why. ? Are they really afraid of a mass shooting and are trying to cover their arses. If it was time and effort then they would just licenses them as they surly know the time and paper work involved in going to the courts, and if they turn pistols down without any excuse then they know at least a few will peruse the issue.

I dont see how difficult the licensees system is if the garda follow the law

have you got a safe ☑
are you not a treat to society ☑
Are you a member of a pistol club ☑


To say that you could use a larger magazine and break the law is a real Defamation of character

meathstevie

Cass wrote: »

It's utter bullsh*t, to put it bluntly.

It insinuates that the person licensed will intentionally break the conditions of their license (hence the law) by loading more than they are allowed to. It's (however vaguely) akin to saying you cannot have a driving license because you may at some point break the speed limit, have a crash, not wear your seatbelt, etc. It's anticipatory measures to deal with something that may happen.

What makes it all the more insulting is the lads going for their licenses are, for the majority, renewing and hence were deemed suitable to have the gun as it was/is previously. So if they are unsuitable then the Super should never have granted licenses in the first as it's a breach of the firearms act to grant a letter to an unsuitable person.

Spot on Cass, the analogy you're drawing up with cars and driving licences is actually incorrect. It's more down the lines of ....you live in a county where there's no motorway so you can't own a car that's able to drive faster than 100km/h. The fact that it will probably be impossible to source such a car unless it's a 1/4 size child's pedal car is though ****....

Heckler

Cass wrote: »

It's utter bullsh*t, to put it bluntly.

It insinuates that the person licensed will intentionally break the conditions of their license (hence the law) by loading more than they are allowed to. It's (however vaguely) akin to saying you cannot have a driving license because you may at some point break the speed limit, have a crash, not wear your seatbelt, etc. It's anticipatory measures to deal with something that may happen.

What makes it all the more insulting is the lads going for their licenses are, for the majority, renewing and hence were deemed suitable to have the gun as it was/is previously. So if they are unsuitable then the Super should never have granted licenses in the first as it's a breach of the firearms act to grant a letter to an unsuitable person.

Its a farce at this stage. Would be comical if it wasn't so serious.

My pistol mags have a modification to restrict them to 5 rounds as per my licence requirements. No problem. However the AGS can come to my club and ask to see competition score cards to show that I'm actively participating in competitions. (god forbid I might just want to shoot for the fun of it). The rub being that any competitions so far I've been in, T & P and multi target, involve a course of fire of 6 shots.

Even range sign in and outs have been questioned. "Ok that proves you were there but it doesn't prove that you were actually shooting". Ffs. how do you argue against that type of nonsense.

Cass

bpb101 wrote: »

But a Big question is why. ? Are they really afraid of a mass shooting and are trying to cover their arses.

No. Simple answer is they don't want citizens/civilians with firearms. It's really that simple. I, like many others i'm sure, have actually had a Garda tell me if he had his way i wouldn't have a slingshot. To which i politely told him "thanks for your input, now do your job and send my application upstairs".

If it was time and effort then they would just licenses them as they surly know the time and paper work involved in going to the courts,.........

Previously they did not care. It's not their money they are wasting. Since costs were awarded though you now have the proposals, meetings, etc. IOW when you start taking money out of their pockets/budget they sit up and pay attention.

meathstevie wrote: »

Spot on Cass, the analogy you're drawing up with cars and driving licences is actually incorrect. It's more down the lines of ...

However you want to put it, it's preventative based on the assumption of a future crime. They must have these in the Phoenix Park:

Cass

Heckler wrote: »

However the AGS can come to my club and ask to see competition score cards to show that I'm actively participating in competitions. ........

There is another thing. The FCA1 asks you to show good reason for needing it. Since when does the law allow for them asking for competition entries, and scores to show you are participating.

The next question then becomes what level of competing is deemed sufficient? I cannot remember of the top of my head, but i believe there is no Act, or section to cover this. IOW demanding it AFTER being granted is unlawful.

bpb101

Cass wrote: »

There is another thing. The FCA1 asks you to show good reason for needing it. Since when does the law allow for them asking for competition entries, and scores to show you are participating.

The next question then becomes what level of competing is deemed sufficient? I cannot remember of the top of my head, but i believe there is no Act, or section to cover this. IOW demanding it AFTER being granted is unlawful.

Becuase you cant class what is or isent a competition

You can have a competition between you and yourself.
you and the person beside you

Heckler

I have no aspirations (or skill !!) to even be a serious competitor on a national level, never mind this olympic standard the PTB think all pistol shooters should be aiming for. Which a blind man can see is just an excuse to refuse pistol licences.

When I applied for a rifle licence years back I put under good reason for needing one as hoping to compete nationally and internationally. Figured saying "it looks like fun" wouldn't have been acceptable.

Cass

bpb101 wrote: »

Becuase you cant class what is or isent a competition

Don't get what this is in response to.

You can have a competition between you and yourself.
you and the person beside you

You can hence my point. You can only get a pistol for use on an authorised range. Not for competitions, but for use on an authorised range. So whether you plink or compete on an international level, since when has it become the norm for people to have to show competition records to renew their licenses. Also since when did this become law?

bpb101

Cass wrote: »

Don't get what this is in response to.

There is not act that sets out what level is needed to compete at.

You can hence my point. You can only get a pistol for use on an authorised range. Not for competitions, but for use on an authorised range. So whether you plink or compete on an international level, since when has it become the norm for people to have to show competition records to renew their licenses. Also since when did this become law?

Who was asked to show a proof of competition ?


Also a point i raised in my submission about only allowing Olympics style pistols . You cant just wake up in the morning and say hey , i want to be an Olympics hopefully.
Also with the proposals. Section 2(4)(D) which allows you to shoot an an authorized range for target or competition without a licenses . They want to exclude pistols from this list.

So a person who has never shot a pistol before will only be allowed to shoot a Olympics pistol, but cant do that without shelling out something that costs 2000+

Heckler

Its just another hurdle they can put in your way. You say your need for a particular firearm is for the sake of just shooting. Sorry, nope not good enough..

Its for competition, Ok.

A year later...I see you haven't been in any competitions. Why do you still need this firearm. Renewal refused. Or following spot checks licence revoked.

Heckler

bpb101 wrote: »

There is not act that sets out what level is needed to compete at.



Who was asked to show a proof of competition ?


Also a point i raised in my submission about only allowing Olympics style pistols . You cant just wake up in the morning and say hey , i want to be an Olympics hopefully.
Also with the proposals. Section 2(4)(D) which allows you to shoot an an authorized range for target or competition without a licenses . They want to exclude pistols from this list.


So a person who has never shot a pistol before will only be allowed to shoot a Olympics pistol, but cant do that without shelling out something that costs 2000+

Thats the whole point. They want to make it so inaccessible (expensive) to potential pistol shooters that they don't even bother applying.

Throw in some ridiculous mag capacity nonsense etc as a reason to refuse pistol renewals and eventually noone has a pistol anymore. Its so transparent its nearly laughable.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

So whether you plink or compete on an international level, since when has it become the norm for people to have to show competition records to renew their licenses. Also since when did this become law?

Actually, the Minister himself back in '06 stated that being competitive was not a requirement, that someone who just goes down to the range to shoot as a pastime has as valid and as legitimate a "good reason" under section 4 as an Olympic team competitor training every day and spending thousands to represent their country.

Your attendance can get looked at; that's by design -- but the actual competitive level itself was considered unimportant by that design so long as you were sufficiently competent so that you wouldn't be a danger to yourself others through incompetence. That's why section 4 talks about proof of competence instead of proof of proficiency.